Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-tsvsl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T22:23:33.870Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Poll Tax: The Case of Texas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Donald S. Strong
Donald S. Strong
Affiliation:
University of Texas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The bitter controversy in Congress over anti-poll-tax legislation has revealed the need for a careful study of this subject. But rather little discriminating material has appeared. The case for poll-tax retention rests on folklore; the case for its abolition rests on propaganda, which is often more impassioned than exact. Belief in the poll tax is socially correct in the South. Logical argument is only a minor bulwark of the tax. Its main defense is the raised eyebrows that follow any questioning of the wisdom of this voting requirement. The opposition to the tax relies more on logic, but the statistics marshalled to support its case often will not stand up under close scrutiny. This article attempts to tell the story of the poll tax, with particular reference to Texas.

The difference between the poll tax as a voting requirement and merely as a revenue measure must be emphasized. Many states levy a poll tax which has nothing to do with suffrage. Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Indiana—to mention only four—have this tax. Although various means of enforcing payment are used, failure to pay does not disfranchise anyone. The poll tax as a prerequisite to voting is now found in only eight states, viz., Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas, and Tennessee.

Type
American Government and Politics
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , August 1944 , pp. 693 - 709
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1944

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Budd, H., The Negro in Polities in Texas, 1867–1898, University of Texas Master's Thesis, unpublished, 1925.Google Scholar

2 The most complete treatment of this party will be found in Martin, Roscoe C., The People's Party in Texas; A Study of Third Party Politics, University of Texas Bulletin, No. 3308 (Feb. 22, 1933).Google Scholar See especially pp. 61–70 for evidence that the Populist party was a poor farmers' movement. Pp. 89–112 show that its supporters were almost entirely whites.

3 Hearings before a Sub-Committee of the Committee on the Judiciary, U. S. Senate, 77th Cong., 2nd Sess., Vol. I, pp. 171–176.

4 Ibid., p. 91.

5 This report appeared originally in Rock's, LittleArkansas Democrat of Feb. 18, 1937.Google Scholar Exerpts may be found in Hearings, I, pp. 277–278. See ibid., pp. 278–281, for instances of this practice in other sections of Arkansas.

6 The Texas senate's investigation arose out of a contested election and is published as Glasscock v. Parr, Supplement to the Senate Journal, Regular Session of the 36th Legislature, 1919. The other document is U. S. House of Representatives, 70th Cong., 2nd Sess., Report No. 2821. It contains the results of an investigation by the Select Committee to Investigate Campaign Expenditures.

7 National Resources Committee, Consumer Incomes in the United States; Their Distribution in 1935–36 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1938), p. 6.Google Scholar

8 The potential white electorate of the years 1930 and 1940 is available from the census breakdowns. In 1930, the potential white electorate was 33.5 per cent of the total population; in 1940, it was 37.7 per cent. Thus, it increased 4.2 per cent in the ten-year period. It is a reasonable assumption that the rate of increase was uniform. Thus, every two years the potential white electorate would increase by one-fifth of 4.2 per cent or, .84 per cent. The potential white electorate of 1930 was 33.5 per cent of the total population; in 1932, it would be 33.5 per cent plus .84 per cent, or 34.3 per cent. Total population figures for 1932 are available from the Census Bureau's inter-census estimates. The potential white electorate of 1932 is 34.3 per cent of the total population figure of that year.

9 These election figures are published by the Louisiana secretary of state.

10 Table III and the chart are based on Hearings, I, pp. 55–60.

11 54 Crim. Rep. 261, 114 S.W. 349.

12 The remaining 25 cents of the $1.75 is levied by the county, although it is, of course, statutory law that authorizes the county to levy it.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.